A group concept mapping and ethnographic study of intensive care rehabilitation culture.

BACKGROUND: Early physical activity and physical rehabilitation are advocated in the critical care unit for patients recovering from critical illness. Despite this, there are still many factors associated with implementation of early physical rehabilitation into routine critical care and practice. One such factor that has been consistently identified is unit culture, yet there is little understanding of how or why the culture of a critical care unit impacts on implementation of early rehabilitation. AIM: To develop a detailed understanding of the cultural barriers and enablers to the promotion and implementation of physical activity and early mobilization in National Health Service (NHS) critical care units in the United Kingdom (UK). STUDY DESIGN: A mixed-methods, two-phase study incorporating online group concept mapping (GCM) and ethnography. GCM will be conducted to provide a multistakeholder co-authored conceptual framework of rehabilitation culture. Ethnographic observations and interviews will be conducted of culture and behaviours in relation to the implementation and promotion of early physical activity and rehabilitation in two NHS critical care units in the North East of England. RESULTS: The results of the Group Concept Mapping and ethnographic observations and interviews will be triangulated to develop a contextual framework of rehabilitation culture in critical care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study will provide a detailed understanding of barriers and facilitators in relation to providing a positive rehabilitation culture in the critical care unit.

Intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill (EPICC): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early physical rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to improve short-term clinical outcomes but long-term benefit has not been proven and the optimum intensity of rehabilitation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, parallel-group, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, controlled trial in patients who had received at least 48 hours of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by admitting ICU, admission type and level of independence. The intervention group had a target of 90 min physical rehabilitation per day, the control group a target of 30 min per day (both Monday to Friday). The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) measure of SF-36 at 6 months. RESULTS: We recruited 308 participants over 34 months: 150 assigned to the intervention and 158 to the control group. The intervention group received a median (IQR) of 161 (67-273) min of physical rehabilitation on ICU compared with 86 (31-139) min in the control group. At 6 months, 62 participants in the intervention group and 54 participants in the control group contributed primary outcome data. In the intervention group, 43 had died, 11 had withdrawn and 34 were lost to follow-up, while in the control group, 56 had died, 5 had withdrawn and 43 were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the primary outcome at 6 months, mean (SD) PCS 37 (12.2) in the intervention group and 37 (11.3) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, ICU-based physical rehabilitation did not appear to improve physical outcomes at 6 months compared with standard physical rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 20436833.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of undiagnosed major cardiac comorbidities in COPD.

Background: It is often stated that heart disease is underdiagnosed in COPD. Evidence for this statement comes from primary studies, but these have not been synthesised to provide a robust estimate of the burden of undiagnosed heart disease. Methods: A systematic review of studies using active diagnostic techniques to establish the prevalence of undiagnosed major cardiac comorbidities in patients with COPD was carried out. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for terms relating to heart failure (specifically, left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation), relevant diagnostic techniques and COPD. Studies published since 1980, reporting diagnosis rates using recognised diagnostic criteria in representative COPD populations not known to have heart disease were included. Studies were classified by condition diagnosed, diagnostic threshold used and whether participants had stable or exacerbated COPD. Random-effects meta-analysis of prevalence was conducted where appropriate. Results: In general, prevalence estimates for undiagnosed cardiac comorbidities in COPD had broad confidence intervals, with significant study heterogeneity. Most notably, a prevalence of undiagnosed LVSD of 15.8% (11.1-21.1%) was obtained when defined as left ventricular ejection fraction <50%. Undiagnosed CAD was found in 2.3-18.0% of COPD patients and atrial fibrillation in 1.4% (0.3-3.5%). Conclusion: Further studies using recent diagnostic advances, and investigating therapeutic interventions for patients with COPD and heart disease are needed.

The impact of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England: a review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review of the published literature for evidence of the impact of any of the current programmes or their predecessors, and asked programme leads to share examples of the impact of their work. Data were thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Evidence about impact related to clinicians' awareness and practice, structural aspects of healthcare, processes of care and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The national clinical outcome review programmes appear to have had significant impact, but none are funded to assess the outcome and impact of the recommendations they make or to deliver a programme of change. There is no structured and systematic way in which the findings and recommendations of each programme are taken forward, nor in which the findings from across programmes are collated and considered.

Extra Physiotherapy in Critical Care (EPICC) Trial Protocol: a randomised controlled trial of intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill.

INTRODUCTION: Patients discharged from Critical Care suffer from excessive longer term morbidity and mortality. Physical and mental health measures of quality of life show a marked and immediate fall after admission to Critical Care with some recovery over time. However, physical function is still significantly reduced at 6 months. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on rehabilitation after critical illness, identified the need for high-quality randomised controlled trials to determine the most effective rehabilitation strategy for critically ill patients at risk of critical illness-associated physical morbidity. In response to this, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial, comparing physiotherapy aimed at early and intensive patient mobilisation with routine care. We hypothesise that this intervention will improve physical outcomes and the mental health and functional well-being of survivors of critical illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 308 adult patients who have received more than 48 h of non-invasive or invasive ventilation in Critical Care will be recruited to a patient-randomised, parallel group, controlled trial, comparing two intensities of physiotherapy. Participants will be randomised to receive either standard or intensive physiotherapy for the duration of their Critical Care admission. Outcomes will be recorded on Critical Care discharge, at 3 and 6 months following initial recruitment to the study. The primary outcome measure is physical health at 6 months, as measured by the SF-36 Physical Component Summary. Secondary outcomes include assessment of mental health, activities of daily living, delirium and ventilator-free days. We will also include a health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has ethical approval from Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (11/NE/0206). There is a Trial Oversight Committee including an independent chair. The results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20436833.